Why are there still young earth creationists? Even if Neo-Darwinianism were true, it wouldn't undermine biblical inerrancy, nor would it undermine Christianity.

In fact the roots of modern creationism would be dismaying to most Christians. It all came from a post-enlightenment and self-proclaimed "prophetess" who had 'visions' of noahs flood and who wrongly predicted the end times a couple times.

Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

At 12/6/2012 12:08:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

So I guess the best approach is internal to the bible, to show we're not forced to adopt a literalist interpretation of Gen.1-2

At 12/6/2012 12:08:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

So I guess the best approach is internal to the bible, to show we're not forced to adopt a literalist interpretation of Gen.1-2

Then demonstrate the evidence for an old earth and then evolution.

See atheists have been doing it all backwards!

Speaking from personal experience, I don't think too many atheists care about whether or not Genesis 1 - 2 necessitates a literal reading which is why they may just go straight for the evidence for an old earth and evolution. Of course, there are notable exceptions like the philosopher Michael Ruse (he does nice work on this subject).

At 12/6/2012 12:08:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

So I guess the best approach is internal to the bible, to show we're not forced to adopt a literalist interpretation of Gen.1-2

Then demonstrate the evidence for an old earth and then evolution.

See atheists have been doing it all backwards!

Speaking from personal experience, I don't think too many atheists care about whether or not Genesis 1 - 2 necessitates a literal reading which is why they may just go straight for the evidence for an old earth and evolution. Of course, there are notable exceptions like the philosopher Michael Ruse (he does nice work on this subject).

At 12/6/2012 12:08:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

So I guess the best approach is internal to the bible, to show we're not forced to adopt a literalist interpretation of Gen.1-2

Then demonstrate the evidence for an old earth and then evolution.

See atheists have been doing it all backwards!

Speaking from personal experience, I don't think too many atheists care about whether or not Genesis 1 - 2 necessitates a literal reading which is why they may just go straight for the evidence for an old earth and evolution. Of course, there are notable exceptions like the philosopher Michael Ruse (he does nice work on this subject).

At 12/6/2012 12:08:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

So I guess the best approach is internal to the bible, to show we're not forced to adopt a literalist interpretation of Gen.1-2

On the contrary - the young earthers err precisely because they have NOT used a literal interpretation of Genesis. The actuality is that - when care is taken with the Hebrew - the earth was created in the very distant past far far longer ago than 6,000 years.

Genesis is then concerned with a restoration process, the restoration and beautification of an already existing earth ravaged by Angelic rebellion.

This is the focus of the seven day "creation week" narrative.

Then demonstrate the evidence for an old earth and then evolution.

See atheists have been doing it all backwards!

Well evolution is too vague a term I think - adaptation does occur and I do not dispute it - but extrapolating that to the gradiose claim that all life today arose via the same mechanism is unsound and at odds with some critical evidence.

At 12/6/2012 12:08:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:Well, I think this is a easy question to answer: probably because many YEC's may feel that their reading (or group of readings) is the only way (or best way) to faithfully be a Christian. That belief is utterly mistaken on multiple fronts but I think the motivation is clear.

So I guess the best approach is internal to the bible, to show we're not forced to adopt a literalist interpretation of Gen.1-2

On the contrary - the young earthers err precisely because they have NOT used a literal interpretation of Genesis. The actuality is that - when care is taken with the Hebrew - the earth was created in the very distant past far far longer ago than 6,000 years.

Genesis is then concerned with a restoration process, the restoration and beautification of an already existing earth ravaged by Angelic rebellion.

This is the focus of the seven day "creation week" narrative.

Then demonstrate the evidence for an old earth and then evolution.

See atheists have been doing it all backwards!

Well evolution is too vague a term I think - adaptation does occur and I do not dispute it - but extrapolating that to the gradiose claim that all life today arose via the same mechanism is unsound and at odds with some critical evidence.

Harry.

Interesting, I always thought a literalist view gets you to a literal 7 day creation week. But now that you mention it I do notice a dual narrative taking place in Gen. Plus it's dramatic focus. Harry, have you ever done an in-depth study on the creationism controversy?

I agree with your take on evolution, such an extrapolation seems to be only supported by "promissory naturalism" that says, "don't worry, the evidence will be there just wait". (Kind of like how we were told to wait until the healthcare passed to view the fine print ;-)

I affirm overall the principle of Evolution that selective pressure acts on pre-existing variation. I just dispute, reasonably I think, the origin of that pre-existing variation, namely the DNA/RNA & it's epi-machines. Are you familiar with ENCODE?

At 12/5/2012 10:33:43 PM, Apeiron wrote:Why are there still young earth creationists? Even if Neo-Darwinianism were true, it wouldn't undermine biblical inerrancy, nor would it undermine Christianity.

In fact the roots of modern creationism would be dismaying to most Christians. It all came from a post-enlightenment and self-proclaimed "prophetess" who had 'visions' of noahs flood and who wrongly predicted the end times a couple times.